Court : Karnataka
(Prayers: E.P.No.2/2009 is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by the petitioner “ Sri Prasanna Kumar who is an elector in the 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency election held on 30.4.2009 along with his advocates Ko. Chennabasappa and Gangadhar G.D., praying that the Honble Court may be pleased to accept this election petition for trial, declare the election of the first respondent the returned candidate as void and direct the Election Commission of India to hold fresh election to the Lok Sabha from 13 Davanagere Constituency to the vacancy caused by setting aside the election held on 30.4.2009 and etc. E.P.No.3/2009 is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by the petitioner “ Sri M.G. Thippeswamy S/o Gurusiddappa who is an elector in the 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency election held on 30.4.2009 along with his advocate Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi praying that the Honble Court may be pleased to accept this electi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR606; 2006(4)BomCR392
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This petition is filed for declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 as candidate from 'O4' Deogad Assembly Constituency in the general election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 13th October, 2004 as Official candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as 'BJP') representing the alliance of Shivsena-BJP, be declared illegal, null and void.2. The notice in Form No. 1 declaring the Election programme was published on September 15, 2004. The date of filing nomination was from 15th September 2004 till 22nd September, 2004. The scrutiny of nomination was to be undertaken on 23rd September, 2004 and the list of valid candidates after due scrutiny was to be published thereafter. Under the said Notification, date of withdrawal of nomination was 25th September, 2004. On that date, besides the petitioner, the six respondents herein remained in the fray for polling to be held on 13th October, 2004 between 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR223; 2008(6)MhLj391
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. It is a settled cannon of interpretative law that recital or preamble of an Act is key for opening the meaning and intent of an Act. Equally true it is that preamble of the statute can neither expand nor control the scope and application of the substantive provision particularly when it is clear and explicit. The legislature with a view to provide for orderly development of co-operative movement in the State of Maharashtra and in accordance with the relevant directive principle of the State policy enumerated in the Constitution of India considered it expedient to consolidate and enact the laws relating to the Co-operative Society in the State. The Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 in its application to State of Maharashtra was repealed and by a new enactment The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was enacted. This Act was for the development of the co-operative movement which was expected to be in an or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All128
ORDERU.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioner whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer has filed the instant petition under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenging the election of 13th Lok Sabha from 20 LucknowParliamentary Constituency which was held in the year 1999 in which the respondent was declared elected.2. On 7th January, 2000 notice was issued by this Court to the respondent for filing written statement. On behalf of the respondent an application under Section 86 of the Act read with Order 6, Rule 16, Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved with a prayer that the present election petition be dismissed in limine as the petitioner has no right to file the petition under Section 81 of the Act. It was also stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was not a 'duly nominated candidate' as no affidavit was filed by him, as required, and as such he had no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(14)SCALE199; 2007AIRSCW304; 2007AIRSCW304; (2006)13SCC353
C.K. Thakker, J.1. All these appeals have been instituted by the aggrieved appellants against separate orders passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.2. To appreciate the issues raised in the present appeals, relevant facts may be stated in brief.Sathi Vijay Kumar, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4093 of 2004 was a candidate in the general election of the Punjab Constituent Assembly from 99, Moga Constituency scheduled to be held in February, 2002. According to the appellant, the Election Commission of India issued a notification for holding election in the State of Punjab. The last date for filing nomination papers as per the programme was January 23, 2002. The appellant filed his nomination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress whereas Tota Singh, respondent No. 1 was the candidate set up by Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal). The nomination papers were scrutinized on January 24, 2002. The last date for withdrawal of candidature was January 28, 2002. Polling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. Instant election petition has been filed challenging the result of biennial election of Rajya Sabha/Council of State, which was declared on 26.6.2004.The present Election petition was filed on 13.07.2004. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for nomination of Bench and in turn thereof, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra was nominated. Subsequently, Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Srivastava was nominated and thereafter Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shri Narayan Shukla was nominated to deal with the matter but later on His Lordship released the case and in turn this Bench has been nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. At the very threshold of arguments, Shri S.N. Shukla learned Counsel for the election petitioner had not pressed the relief with regard to the validity/vires of amended provision contained in Section 3 of the Representation of Peoples Act, hence, question with regard to validity of amended Section 3 of the Representation of Peoples A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether a candidate has to be an 'elector' finding a place in the final voters' list to contest the election to the Dental Council of India under section 3(a) of the Dentists Act, 1948, is the issue involved herein. 2. The petitioner who acquired a degree in BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) from the Government Dental College, Bangalore in the year 1981 set up his practice as a Dental Surgeon in Calicut till 1984 and thereafter shifted his practice to a suburban area called Chemmad in Malappuram district, where he is continuing as such. As per the relevant provisions of law, a qualified Dentist has to be got registered under the Act and the Registration has to be renewed every year as prescribed. The registration of the petitioner was earlier with the Dental Council, Karnataka and was later registered in the Dental Council, Kerala w.e.f. 12.08.1993 as per Ext. P1 certificate of registration. 3. In fact two types of registration are contemplated under the Statute-Part A and Part B as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC61
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1999 passed by the Returning Officer, 26 Suitanpur Parliamentary Constituency, opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted that in case any nomination of the candidate has been improperly rejected, the remedy available to him is by filing an election petition and not the writ petition. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraphs 9 and 11 to 13 of the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt. and others, AIR 1952 SC 64, wherein it has been held as under :'(9) The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006(2)CTC241; (2006)3MLJ129
P.K. Misra, J.1. The factual background as culled out from various writ petitions and the counter affidavit is as follows:-Mr. R. Nataraj has been functioning as the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, since 18.9.2004. It seems for publication in Chennai Chronicle - a supplement of the Newspaper Deccan Chroncile on 8.3.2006, which was being observed as International Womens Day, R. Nataraj was contacted by a representative of such newspaper to give his opinion regarding an ideal woman. As per the newspaper report, R. Nataraj has stated:An ideal woman is someone who manages both her personal and professional life well. In this respect, I think our chief minister J. Jayalalitha is the perfect example of the ideal woman.I think she is an icon and every woman should look up to her.Thereafter, publication of such comment in the newspaper appears to have been brought to the notice of the Election Commission. (It is claimed by Mr. A. Raja, a Minister in the Union Government, that it is he who bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1348
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These petitions raise a question of considerable importance to the proper working of the Mandal Panchayats constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluka Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short called as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.2. Various contentions have been taken by the petitioners in these petitions challenging the validity of the nominations made by the Zilla Parishads under the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act. They have questioned not only the validity of the nominations but also the eligibility of the candidates who were nominated oh the ground that those candidates do not satisfy the criteria of backwardness as defined in the Act.3. In the course of the arguments by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it was observed by this Court that a preliminary issue touching the jurisdiction of the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishads to make nominations under Section 5(3) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!